|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... Marcel Luttgens wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... Marcel Luttgens wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... snip You are claiming that time on SN is dilated wrt time on Earth, No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that you do not understand the things which are explained to you. I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. You should specify that it "looks" dilated by a factor f *to an Earth observer*. To any observer *now*, which as the same distance to the SN as we on Earth. And you are forgetting that the time on Earth *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated by the same factor f *to a supernova observer*. Right. This is a mere consequence of the Cosmological Principle, according to which all positions in the universe are essentially equivalent. Mathematically, for an Earth observer, to a time interval t(earth) corresponds a time interval (1) t(supernova) = t(earth) * f, and symmetrically, for a galactic observer, t(earth) = t(supernova) * f, where f is the same time dilation factor. Err, you are denoting quite different things with the same name here. More correct is: dt(supernova,when light was emitted) = f*dt(earth, when light is observed) and dt(earth,when light was emitted) = f*dt(supernova, when light is observed) One can simplify that to dt(when light was emitted) = f*dt(when light is observed), since that is valid for every position of the emitter and of the observer. By replacing this value of t(earth) in relation (1), one gets t(supernova) = t(supernova) * f^2, which is only possible if f = 1. Wrong premise == wrong conclusion. If you would have written this down more carefully, like I show above, this does obviously not follow. You don't understand what you are talking about - and you show that with every single post. Thus relation (1) reduces to t(supernova) = t(earth), meaning that, contrary to the claim made by contemporary cosmologists, no "time dilation factor works on supernovae to lessen the delay in the rest frame". Contemporary cosmologists, who base their claim on general relativity, are simply wrong. You are simply wrong. Because you still attack silly strawmen. And are not careful in writing down the equations. Bye, Bjoern |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ... [snip] "Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*. Err, no. The space between them expands. This makes it only look like as if they move apart. Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time slowing on A. Right. But your conclusion that these effects somehow cancel is total rubbish. SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B, or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots. Try finding the fault in *your* so-called logic, crackpit. [snip] Bye, Bjoern |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ... [snip] "Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*. Err, no. The space between them expands. This makes it only look like as if they move apart. Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time slowing on A. Right. But your conclusion that these effects somehow cancel is total rubbish. SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B, or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots. Try finding the fault in *your* so-called logic, crackpit. [snip] Bye, Bjoern |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ... vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Just to add a little more to Bjoern's response... astro-ph/0104382 They arrived at close agreement in derived distances using four methods: - red shift, - time stretch of the duration of the SN event from max intensity to some fixed proportion of max intensity, - intensity (1/r^2), - and one other I couldn't figure out. David A. Smith |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ... vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Just to add a little more to Bjoern's response... astro-ph/0104382 They arrived at close agreement in derived distances using four methods: - red shift, - time stretch of the duration of the SN event from max intensity to some fixed proportion of max intensity, - intensity (1/r^2), - and one other I couldn't figure out. David A. Smith |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:11:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote: vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Huh? `Time dilatation seen in light curves' How does it manifest itself if not by frequency change? The expansion still referable to the big bang? Huh? Why is relative motion occurring? One cause might be residual expansion as a result of `big bang' The constant velocity light traversing the variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each other? Yes. Bye, Bjoern |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:11:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote: vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Huh? `Time dilatation seen in light curves' How does it manifest itself if not by frequency change? The expansion still referable to the big bang? Huh? Why is relative motion occurring? One cause might be residual expansion as a result of `big bang' The constant velocity light traversing the variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each other? Yes. Bye, Bjoern |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:11:10 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote: Dear vonroach: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ... vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Just to add a little more to Bjoern's response... astro-ph/0104382 They arrived at close agreement in derived distances using four methods: - red shift, - time stretch of the duration of the SN event from max intensity to some fixed proportion of max intensity, - intensity (1/r^2), - and one other I couldn't figure out. David A. Smith Huh? One you couldn't figure out? You have a standard for the decay in the intensity of a supernova? That's a new one. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:11:10 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote: Dear vonroach: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ... vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Just to add a little more to Bjoern's response... astro-ph/0104382 They arrived at close agreement in derived distances using four methods: - red shift, - time stretch of the duration of the SN event from max intensity to some fixed proportion of max intensity, - intensity (1/r^2), - and one other I couldn't figure out. David A. Smith Huh? One you couldn't figure out? You have a standard for the decay in the intensity of a supernova? That's a new one. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:11:10 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: Dear vonroach: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ... vonroach wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened since the emission of the light. Nothing more. Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves. Just to add a little more to Bjoern's response... astro-ph/0104382 They arrived at close agreement in derived distances using four methods: - red shift, - time stretch of the duration of the SN event from max intensity to some fixed proportion of max intensity, - intensity (1/r^2), - and one other I couldn't figure out. Huh? One you couldn't figure out? I *am* an Idiot after all. ;) You have a standard for the decay in the intensity of a supernova? That's a new one. Actually no. Type I supernovas are well documented. Just read the paper. Do you need a better link? URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0104382 You can pick the flavor of document your 'puter will tolerate. David A. Smith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 42 | November 11th 03 03:43 AM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. | The Ghost In The Machine | Astronomy Misc | 172 | August 30th 03 10:27 PM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |